The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-09-20
Miller on the Witness Stand.
He Attacks the Testimony Of the
Witness, Sue yallery.
Says She Denied That She Had Seen
a Man Cross the Lot.
Mr.. Miller, Although District kttor.
ney, Is Receiving Fees.
Col. Nuwent, One Of the Counsel for
Hamilton, Opens the Argu.
ment In Conservative
Manner
lsrucIAL TO ras


JACK 'os, Miss, September l9.-
Court was late in opening this morn.
ing, on account Of absence OF counsel,
but at 9;45 o'clock Judge Cooper took
The bench and announced that fere-
after court would commenc, prompt
Iy. Mr. K, N, Miller was present at
court this morning, having arrived the
night before. At his request the court
took a recess for one hour, in order TO
give him time 10 lock over Ito fiIi.
daviis OF witnesses.
Court assembled sghn at 1880
O'Clock, when Mr.. r. N. Miller, for the
State, took the stand. He said Sue
Vallery had denied seeing q man run.
ming across tie lot behind the foundry,
He had questioned her In regard TO
tha' point She went on TO tel him
somsthing about the shots, etc but
he paid no attention TO that, and told
her ogo back into tho room under
the rule. Had told HIS associates that
IL Sue Vallery had been summoned to
provo that a man ran across towards
Pearl street che was no good. Judge
Brame, Mr.. Allen and himself had a
conversation with Beverly Randall, In
which Randall denied knowing any.
thing much about lha case. He pnint-
cd out E.lzl DAwBou No ono who cav
the shooting. Tha State had summoned
Beverly Randall. Council for tbs
State, had Pg,eed, In consultation, 10
pat on the stand all eye. witaes,ea;
put Maj. Glbba, William, Hil, Ia,
yidaon and Others under The Iulc, To
contradict other testimony; mAde 40
Investigations at Sue ValleIy's honao;
Lad not pu on Laura Walker btcause
" was presumed that her tCsiiu opy
wss tho same as the other vitrrsfes
llylrg In tho came houre; knew nat
Mel. Gibbs was working up tcsumlny
for Col. Hamilton; knew that JAues
Hill, Jack Williams AID T.. q. h
were friend0 Of Col. Hamilton; they
were under the rule fur or 1--we dave;
dictated tho GilidAvila myfeli, and
John II. Martin wrote them GU. Mr.
Miller was kept on the aiaId for moIe
lha an hour, questioned very closely
A. 70 al the w.,astsss, etc. lie denied
oil the gallons ~ 10 tuppI fs.ay
evidence.
Mr.. W, q. Bradley was called, by
permiaalCn, and aaked further about
his conytrsAtlon with judge Brame,
lie ttln adhered 10 the isot thai tho
conversation had taken place snd vss
the same ~ hist at,ealed By IA.
Judge Btame stated that while 10
remembered The conversation with
oar. Bradley, he denied telling him
that there was no foIilmony against
Albfechii had known Mr.. Bradley
ever since the war; lived In the same
ttwI. Judge Bramee additional tosti-
mony closed the testimony for the
State.
Mr Miller was then asked By ooun.
sci Tor the deiense II he was being
paid Tor his work In this matter ont.
aide Of his official salary, and replied
that he was. After n few moro lmma-
ieiial msutuveTa court took rece,s
until o'clock.
Afihhhooh bEHoN.
Al the afternoon session II was an.
nounced that ell the testimony ON both
side was In, and the Uluh wm now
ready n bear argument.
COL Nugant, for the def .. opened
The argument In aspeern OF some
] ngth, in which he carefully reviewed
tha whole case, dieclsiming any inteu.
ton ON tho part OF COUNSEL for tho de-
ifpss TO charge counsel for tho proee.
oution with any dishonoabe or nm.
iair motives In requesting lee mony or
10 examine witL.tsss who
had beon summoned ard put nDder
the rule by them, but ins'stlrg fLaI
such had been done, which entltlei
the rela'oB 10 new hearing OF Tho
whole case. Dol. Nugeni'a Aigum nj
was ma,lorly and convincing, al q yaa
listened 10 with interest hy all who
heard him. He was followed In an
ableapeech by Mr.. Alexander, of elun.
sel for the defence.
The argument In tho morning will
be concluded BY A. J. MoLGufln ior
The defense and a. q. Huddleston f3t
The prosecution. II IN probable thai
The whole proceedings " II be con.
GUIDED tomorrow AID the lntgss de.
scion rendered. There are tyo points
Ior him 10 decide:
firut-Whether tho allegation Of
he deienfe in rega Il TO tLe pfose a..
Ion having suppressed testimony Ia
proven, and, II ~, was The huppresf ed
testimony oi tuch q character AZ 10
the reopeniDg Of tho whole
'ase on its mofils7
sicond-DJes the expert testimony
eRaid ny HimIl'on's physloa o5rii.
ION warrant tie court In giving I'm
,1il on that account?